We are sincerely grateful to scholars who take the time to peer review articles submitted to Jurnal Nasional Teknik Elektro dan Teknologi Informasi. Rigorous peer review is the cornerstone of high-quality academic publishing, and we rely on qualified reviewers to regulate the quality of the manuscripts we publish.

With that in mind, these guidelines aim to help reviewers to contribute high-quality reviews that are consistent in tone and content, as well as consistent with our expectations for reviewers.

Reviewers’ Attitudes towards Manuscript
Reviewers should treat manuscripts as if they were their own. In other words, treat their peers’ work with the respect and courtesy they’d like their own work to be treated. Reviewers should provide positive and critical but objective and balanced criticisms. Personal, offensive comments are in no way acceptable.
Reviewers also serve as “journal advocates”, ensuring that only quality manuscripts are published. Therefore, the objectives of the peer review should be to ensure that:

1. there are no errors in procedures and logic being made;
2. the presented results support the conclusions;
3. there are no errors in citations;
4. procedures are properly implemented and approved by the appropriate institutional committee; and
5. manuscripts are original and significant.

Reviewer Ethics and Responsibilities
Jurnal Nasional Teknik Elektro dan Teknologi Informasi expects reviewers to provide constructive opinions toward manuscripts, based on extensive knowledge of the topics and a clear understanding of the contexts in which the research is conducted. The decision on whether manuscripts are ultimately accepted for publication rests solely with the Editor-in-Chief.
As a reviewer, your ethical responsibilities can be summarized as follows.

1. If you believe you may have a bias against the manuscript or its author(s), you are obliged to excuse yourself from the review process.
2. You must provide honest and critical assessments of the manuscript, as well as give suggestions for improvement. You may not manipulate the process with the aim of forcing authors to discuss issues in which you are interested.
3. You must maintain confidentiality regarding the existence and substance of the manuscript. It is inappropriate to share it and discuss it in detail with others.
4. Similarly, because uploading an unpublished manuscript to a publicly available generative AI tool could compromise the security of the confidential material therein, we advise against uploading a manuscript, whether whole or in part, into such a tool.
5. You may not use generative AI to generate your review report, to provide analysis for you, or to summarize the content for you. You have been chosen to review the manuscript specifically for the expertise and credibility you bring to its assessment, and using AI undermines this purpose. However, you may use AI technology to assist with improving the grammar or language of your review, and should declare in your report when you have used AI for this purpose. You are responsible for ensuring the accuracy and integrity of your review.
6. You are prohibited from plagiarism, such as obtaining data or new concepts from the manuscript prior to its publication, for yourself. This conduct is considered a severe violation.
7. You must avoid conflict of interest. For example, if you have had some form of involvement with the manuscript or research therein without the knowledge of Jurnal Nasional Teknik Elektro dan Teknologi Informasi, may benefit from a positive study result, or have a close personal or professional relationship with one or more of the authors.
8. You should only accept manuscripts that correspond to your area of expertise.
9. You must complete the review in a timely manner. If, for any reason, you feel you may not complete the review in time, you should notify us as soon as possible. Delays in reviews disadvantage authors, as they hold up the potential publication of their work.
10. You are responsible for reporting any suspected duplicate publication, fraud, plagiarism, or other ethical concerns regarding the manuscript or research being reported.
11. You must review the manuscript in a constructive and collegial manner. You shouldn’t refrain from discussing the manuscripts’ weaknesses (or likewise strengths), and although authors may be displeased by a declined manuscript, thoughtful reviews and appropriate suggestions for improvement will still be very helpful for them.

Review Process
Reviewers should write down the scores for each of the following criteria in a provided score column. In addition, reviewers can give weight to each criterion based on the following questions.

1. Content quality:
   
   • Does the manuscript follow the manuscript length and template/formatting requirements?
   • Title: Is the title of the article straightforward and does it reflect the contents of the paper?
   • Abstract: Is the abstract appropriately concise? Does it represent the research aims, what has been done, and what is found? Are all of them significant?
   • Are the introduction and conclusion in sync?
   • Figures: Are the figures correct and appropriate? Are the figures sharp enough with letters proportional to the figure sizes? Is there a legend to explain the numbers?
   • Tables: Are the tables clear, simple, and concise?
   • Writing: Is the content of the manuscript understandable and concise? Does it use appropriate language?
   • Are the references and citations written in the correct format? Are all citations included in the bibliography?
   • Popular names, abbreviations, symbols: Are all of them in accordance with general rules? Are there any misinterpretations?
2. Scientific quality:
   
   • Does the manuscript provide novelty?
   • Is the methodology appropriate, and written in sufficient detail to permit replication?
   • Are the data adequate to support the conclusion(s)?
3. Publication ethics:
   
   • Does the manuscript adhere to Jurnal Nasional Teknik Elektro dan Teknologi Informasi’s ethical principles?
   • Is the research original and free of plagiarism?

Review Result
The reviewer is responsible for making one of the following recommendations to the Editor-in-Chief of Jurnal Nasional Teknik Elektro dan Teknologi Informasi:

1. Accept without revision.
2. Accept with minor revision (does not undergo a second round of review).
3. Accept with major revision (must undergo a second round of review).
4. Decline the submission.

Accordingly, the review result provides the justification for the reviewer’s recommendation, explaining its strengths and weaknesses, and (in cases for revisions are required) what improvements should be made. These comments will inform the Editor-in-Chief’s final decision, which is made in concert with the editorial board. Please note that we have final say on an article’s publication and may disagree with your recommendation depending on the quality of your review and/or other reviewers’ comments.